Originally Posted by Nerevarine
I don't understand what you are saying here, as both series are very different from each other, thus offering vastly different experiences. How does one effect the interest in the other?

You should consider that because you don't think the two resemble each other - other people might think so.

In my mind, both games are quite similar in terms of overall design and core gameplay.

They're both grand strategy games with a historical flavor. They're both 4X games sharing a boatload of features - including diplomacy, warfare, research, espionage, trade, and so on.

EU is real-time with pause and is extremely abstract - and Civ 5 is turn-based and much less abstract. I would consider those the most vital differences.

In any case - when I go looking for a multiplayer grand strategy 4X game with a historical flavor - I prefer Civ 5 to EU, after the latest expansion and patch.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I don't have a big problem with micromanagment, as long as there's the potential to automate most of it - which is the case in Civ 5. Also, I definitely prefer some level of micromanagment to the extremely abstract nature of the Paradox games.

I need much more tangible visual feedback than what Paradox give their players. It's like everything I do in those games is about adjusting a slider and imagine what's actually happening as numbers go up and down.

That said, I like the stronger historical flavor of EU and CK. I love that sense of real history unfolding - even if it's very, very abstract.

I think over abstraction is a reasonable criticism of Paradox games and I get this spreadsheet feeling too to some extent. I noticed in a recent live stream that Paradox are very aware of this and will be taking steps in EU4 to make decisions more visual and less dependent on fine adjustment of sliders, for instance. The trade and diplomacy systems also look to be much improved in this respect, but I don't imagine that this iteration will be the last word in this respect.

I may be interested in EU4 if they really have improved diplomacy as that is one of the more interesting parts and critical parts of strategy that most games do not do well unless they are multiplayer for obvious reasons. I tend to be more builder than warmonger and some of the softer features like diplomacy are what keeps it interesting.

With regard to Civ5, does Brave New World add much? I liked GoK but not enough to hold prolonged interest.

(With regard to whether EU4 gets front page coverage, please limit to the official release if possible as these tend to be pure strategy.)

Originally Posted by figment
I may be interested in EU4 if they really have improved diplomacy as that is one of the more interesting parts and critical parts of strategy that most games do not do well unless they are multiplayer for obvious reasons. I tend to be more builder than warmonger and some of the softer features like diplomacy are what keeps it interesting.

With regard to Civ5, does Brave New World add much? I liked GoK but not enough to hold prolonged interest.

(With regard to whether EU4 gets front page coverage, please limit to the official release if possible as these tend to be pure strategy.)

I like the diplomacy better since DW and HTT and that might be better. The problem is they have made the actual fighting even easier and all the things to slow expansion are even more artificial and they have borrowed even more of that from magna mundi as far as I can tell. In short they made a good step forward with III and now they are going backwards again to where you are locked in chains and end up bored stiff.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
You should consider that because you don't think the two resemble each other - other people might think so.

In my mind, both games are quite similar in terms of overall design and core gameplay.

They're both grand strategy games with a historical flavor. They're both 4X games sharing a boatload of features - including diplomacy, warfare, research, espionage, trade, and so on.

EU is real-time with pause and is extremely abstract - and Civ 5 is turn-based and much less abstract. I would consider those the most vital differences.

In any case - when I go looking for a multiplayer grand strategy 4X game with a historical flavor - I prefer Civ 5 to EU, after the latest expansion and patch.

Is that really so hard to understand? Strange.

I want to avoid talking about whether one series is "better" than the other or not - I enjoy both series for different reasons, and playing Civ way back when introduced me to PC gaming, ensuring that it will always have a soft spot in my heart - but I will point out what I personally see as major differences between the two series.

In terms of "historical flavor," The Civ series has always felt more like "fantasy" for me. For starters, having immortal, god-like leaders that never age or have successors, the technology "race" throughout time that never allows a player to get immersed in a particular era, basic diplomacy, resource-collection driven economy, random factions like the Indian Nations acquiring advanced technologies that aren't aligned with their culture, etc.

I would never want a strategy game to adhere to "real" history too much - the fun in these games is the idea of alternate, dynamic events taking place within "realistic" contexts - but EU is much more "grounded" in comparison. Neither approach is necessarily better, they are just different.

I wouldn't consider EU to be a "4x" game like Civ, as it's missing some "X" elements - such as exploration. You don't need to scour the land for resources, build new cities (one element of "expand") wherever you feel like, manage worker units, etc. Part of how EU differs from 4x gameplay is that it is extremely diplomacy-driven, and failing to navigate this gameplay aspect gracefully will lead to consequences. In Civ, it doesn't really matter how poorly one handles diplomacy in most cases, so long as the player has the military to run roughshod over every faction. Declaring war is often trivial, alliances and trade do not have a big impact on gameplay, and the focus of Civ lies mostly in building cities, exploring unknown regions of the map, researching technology, and exterminating the enemy with military pursuits.

EU is focused much more heavily on diplomacy and economy; military engagements cannot run properly without these two elements running smoothly. In comparison, Civ possesses a very simple approach, almost "arcade-y" for a strategy game. This isn't necessarily a bad thing however; being able to jump right into the game with little learning curve establishes a nice, fluid rhythm, and is quite nice depending on the player's mood.

So those are some of the major differences that I see between the two games, and it reveals vastly different experiences in my mind. While Civ is focused on traditional 4x elements and is relatively simple in an almost "arcade" way, EU is heavily focused on diplomacy and economy. They are both great series, but for different reasons. Civ is there for an addictive, "just one more turn" style that relies on rhythm and constant forward progression in the classic 4x style. EU is more of a slow-burn, requiring the player to always think several steps ahead when planning the next move.

Originally Posted by Nerevarine
I want to avoid talking about whether one series is "better" than the other or not - I enjoy both series for different reasons, and playing Civ way back when introduced me to PC gaming, ensuring that it will always have a soft spot in my heart - but I will point out what I personally see as major differences between the two series.

Fair enough. To me, I simply enjoy Civ more - and as such, it's better. Obviously, that will depend on the person playing the games.

If you enjoy both to the exact same degree, I understand why you wouldn't want to call one better than the other.

In terms of "historical flavor," The Civ series has always felt more like "fantasy" for me. For starters, having immortal, god-like leaders that never age or have successors, the technology "race" throughout time that never allows a player to get immersed in a particular era, basic diplomacy, resource-collection driven economy, random factions like the Indian Nations acquiring advanced technologies that aren't aligned with their culture, etc.

Oh, it's definitely less "real history" - but there's still a very significant historical flavor to Civ.

I would never want a strategy game to adhere to "real" history too much - the fun in these games is the idea of alternate, dynamic events taking place within "realistic" contexts - but EU is much more "grounded" in comparison. Neither approach is necessarily better, they are just different.

I'd agree with that. In terms of "feel" and "flavor" - I actually prefer EU because it's much more grounded. But the gameplay is way too abstract for me to really enjoy it.

I wouldn't consider EU to be a "4x" game like Civ, as it's missing some "X" elements - such as exploration. You don't need to scour the land for resources, build new cities (one element of "expand") wherever you feel like, manage worker units, etc. Part of how EU differs from 4x gameplay is that it is extremely diplomacy-driven, and failing to navigate this gameplay aspect gracefully will lead to consequences. In Civ, it doesn't really matter how poorly one handles diplomacy in most cases, so long as the player has the military to run roughshod over every faction. Declaring war is often trivial, alliances and trade do not have a big impact on gameplay, and the focus of Civ lies mostly in building cities, exploring unknown regions of the map, researching technology, and exterminating the enemy with military pursuits.

It sounds like you haven't been keeping up to date with the latest Civ and expansions - as there are many plausible ways to win the game that have nothing to do with exterminating the enemy. There are very serious consequences to declaring war - though obviously, it's still a matter of the AI trying to emulate a real human response.

IIRC - the original EU had America as an undiscovered land - and exploring it was a relatively big deal. Frankly, I haven't played any EU seriously since the second one - so I don't really know if they removed that aspect of the game.

In any case, I consider EU "close enough" to justify the 4X label - though I concede it might not be strictly true.

While you call EU diplomacy driven - I consider it slider-driven. You conquer lands, you build up your cities, you research - and you do all of those things. You just don't get a tangible sense of doing it.

EU is focused much more heavily on diplomacy and economy; military engagements cannot run properly without these two elements running smoothly. In comparison, Civ possesses a very simple approach, almost "arcade-y" for a strategy game. This isn't necessarily a bad thing however; being able to jump right into the game with little learning curve establishes a nice, fluid rhythm, and is quite nice depending on the player's mood.

Again, it sounds like you're not up to date. Military engagement in Civ 5 BNW is not trivial anymore - and you really need to have a solid economy and especially in the later stages of the game, diplomacy is a HUGE part of warfare.

I think you should consider looking into Civ again.

So those are some of the major differences that I see between the two games, and it reveals vastly different experiences in my mind. While Civ is focused on traditional 4x elements and is relatively simple in an almost "arcade" way, EU is heavily focused on diplomacy and economy. They are both great series, but for different reasons. Civ is there for an addictive, "just one more turn" style that relies on rhythm and constant forward progression in the classic 4x style. EU is more of a slow-burn, requiring the player to always think several steps ahead when planning the next move.

While I severely disagree that Civ 5 BNW is "arcade" in any way whatsoever - I do think I understand where you're coming from.

As for myself - I think the two games are largely dealing with the same concepts and they both try to fill the same needs - but in very different ways.

I simply prefer the tangible and more hands-on approach of Civ - and I find the EU slider/abstraction approach profoundly unsatisfying.

I don't think EU is more complex at all - but we just see these things differently.

Well one area where Civ 5 is without doubt more complex than any EU game, except maybe HoI 3 which is more wargame than grand strategy/4X, is combat.I think that simplistic combat needs overhaul but from what I seen it's not going to happen with EU 4.

Originally Posted by Nameless one
Well one area where Civ 5 is without doubt more complex than any EU game, except maybe HoI 3 which is more wargame than grand strategy/4X, is combat.I think that simplistic combat needs overhaul but from what I seen it's not going to happen with EU 4.

Nooooo! I really hope they don't do that. To me EU is all about preparing for war… purely strategy. Battles should go without your intervention. You're the ruler, not the general.

Originally Posted by wolfing
Nooooo! I really hope they don't do that. To me EU is all about preparing for war… purely strategy. Battles should go without your intervention. You're the ruler, not the general.

yeah - and that's a part of the fundamental differences in the play styles. In Paradox games you have to relinquish control and more so as your holdings grow, whereas in Civ type games you get to micromanage every unit and tile on the map, that you control, throughout. For me that becomes just too repetitive when your empire has more than a handful of cities.

Interestingly Jon Shafer (Civ 5 designer) launched a recent kickstarter for his new project "At The Gates" and discussed some of these micromanagement issues in the updates. Will be interesting to see how this turns out too.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
While I severely disagree that Civ 5 BNW is "arcade" in any way whatsoever - I do think I understand where you're coming from.

I went back and forth with myself on whether or not to use the term "arcade" or not, as it is a term usually used as an insult. In this case, however, I don't mean it that way at all. It's more of a compliment to Civ's timeless design, really - it's very easy to completely lose track of time immediately upon starting a new game, thanks to the fluid rhythm of the gameplay. Civ is a great example of "easy to pick up, hard to put down." So I should have used a different term, as "Arcade" has been associated with negative insinuations, and that wasn't the intention here.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
As for myself - I think the two games are largely dealing with the same concepts and they both try to fill the same needs - but in very different ways.

I can agree with that, and that's really a great one-sentence summary of what I was trying to explain - they have very different approaches to grand strategy.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I don't think EU is more complex at all - but we just see these things differently.

I still feel that EU/CK are far more complex than Civ, but to play devil's advocate against myself, that could be due to over a decade of following and playing Civ - I'm so familiar with the mechanics of Civ at this point that it might appear to be simpler than it actually is. Whatever the case, I still feel that there is more complexity in EU, but that's just me.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I simply prefer the tangible and more hands-on approach of Civ - and I find the EU slider/abstraction approach profoundly unsatisfying.

I can completely understand that. In fact, it took me several attempts to get into either EU3 or CK2 because of this. I wanted to like the games, but it was just so foreign to what I was used to in strategy games in terms of pacing and how military-driven most games in the genre are. Finally, after enough patience, CK2 just "clicked" for me all of a sudden. I think it was due to my first successful execution of a complex political plot - the satisfaction of planning and executing a multi-step "Game of Thrones" maneuver was very high. It was the same thing with EU - it just clicked with me eventually, and I grew to appreciate the "abstract" aspects of the games and what it allowed the player to accomplish with enough planning. This approach is definitely not for everyone though, and I understand that.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Again, it sounds like you're not up to date. Military engagement in Civ 5 BNW is not trivial anymore - and you really need to have a solid economy and especially in the later stages of the game, diplomacy is a HUGE part of warfare.

I think you should consider looking into Civ again.

The most "up-to-date" I am with Civ is Civ 5 itself, not the expansions. If the non-military aspects have been improved and expanded in scope, then you're right, I do need to look into it again .